TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 706X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... both the parties and have carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below. The facts of the case are that the assessee had purchased a property at Noida for consideration of Rs. 1,25,00,000. It was noticed by the Assessing Officer that as per valuation for the purpose of payment of stamp duty, the value of the plot or property was shown as Rs. 1,34,79,780. In the light of this information, the Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that the actual consideration should be taken at Rs. 1,34,79,780 as per the provisions of section 50C of the Act. Difference of Rs. 9,79,780 was made as addition in the hands of the assessee. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entative of the appellant, observations of the Assessing Officer and various related judicial pronouncements on this issue. These grounds are being finalised after making following observations. A. The Assessing Officer has based this addition primarily on account of the evaluation done by the stamp duty authorities and the amount shown as sale consideration by the appellant. Reference has been made to section 50C of the Income-tax Act. However, this section relates to only the seller of the property and not to the buyer of the property. The Assessing Officer has not made a case that the actual amount of consideration was higher than what has been declared by the appellant. The Assessing Officer has only relied upon the fiction of law a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be treated as unexplained investment by the purchaser of the property. C. Apart from the abovementioned judgments, I also rely upon the following pronouncements which have held that additions for unexplained investment cannot be sustained merely on the basis of valuations, unless there is independent evidences that the actual consideration was more than what was reported by the purchaser of the property. Ashok Soni v. ITO [2006] 102 TTJ (Delhi) 964 Navneet Kumar Thakkar v. ITO [2008] 298 ITR (AT) 42 (Jodhpur) CIT v. Kishan Kumar [2009] 315 ITR 204 (Raj) The facts of the present case as elaborated by the Assessing Officer only indicate that there was a difference in the evaluation of the stamp duty authority and the amount shown by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
